My point, which was probably badly made, is that the article compares the artillery capabilities while (among other things) completely ignoring the existence of

My point, which was probably badly made, is that the article compares the artillery capabilities while (among other things) completely ignoring the existence of the various smart shells (rocket assisted, bonus rounds, airburst fuse, laser guided, etc, etc). Those of course do not replace the dumb shells completely, but means that a NATO artillery in a standard configuration can, when needed, shoot the equivalent of a cruise missile, clear trenches with airburst, etc. Russia can't afford those shells at all and only has dumb rounds. Those difference in capabilities clearly matter. And even smart rounds aside, there is also the question of the communication links, the targeting systems, how reliable is the gear, how trained the soldiers, the software used to coordinate the strikes. How much time does it takes between a soldier requesting a strike and it actually happening ? Ukraine does it in 5 minutes, with shots scheduled on an individual gun basis across multiple units, meaning there's no obvious place to counter barrage at. etc. etc. You can think of artillery as a parcel delivery problem, except you're delivering explosives, and this article is comparing competing solutions by comparing the volumetric capacity of their delivery trucks, a component they've chosen because coincidentally they're the better at. But you have to look at the whole solution and how all the pieces work together.